DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2018/0194344 A1) in view of Endo et al. (US 2009/0174574 A1).
As to claims 1, 8 and 14, Wang discloses a parking support device/method for performing automatic traveling of a vehicle based on a parking operation performed in the past (Fig. 1, Abstract), the parking support device comprising: a processor (Fig. 5, 510); and a memory (Fig. 5, 516) including a computer program, the computer program causing the processor to implement processing, the processing including: performing the automatic traveling based on a traveling route (para. 0004, 0011, 0029, autonomous driving); determining whether the vehicle is within a prescribed distance of a start position within the traveling route (Fig. 102); determining whether the vehicle has stopped at the start position within the traveling route (para. 0014-0015); receiving an operation of starting the automatic traveling from the user after the vehicle reaches and stops at the start position within the traveling route (para. 0014-0015); and starting the automatic traveling when receiving the operation of starting the automatic traveling from the user (Fig. 4, para. 0014-0015). Wang does not explicitly disclose displaying, when the vehicle is within the prescribed distance of the start position within the traveling route, a message prompting a user to stop the vehicle. However, Endo teaches displaying, when the vehicle is within the prescribed distance of the start position within the traveling route, a message prompting a user to stop the vehicle (para. 0077). Therefore, given the teaching of Endo, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of present application to modify the device/method of Wang, by incorporating the well-known feature of displaying a message prompting a user to stop the vehicle, to notify the user to stop the vehicle for automatic parking.
As to claims 2 and 9, Wang further discloses wherein the parking operation performed in the past is teacher traveling performed by a driver (Fig. 3, para. 0018).
As to claims 3 and 10, Wang further discloses comprising: storing the traveling route for parking the vehicle at a parking position based on first sensor information on surroundings of the vehicle acquired by a sensor mounted on the vehicle during the parking operation performed in the past (Fig. 3, para. 0018).
As to claims 4 and 11, Wang further discloses comprising: starting the automatic traveling when the user performs the operation of starting the automatic traveling with an operation button (para. 0012, 0018, 0025, driver command the vehicle to begin autonomous parking).
As to claims 5 and 12, Wang further discloses comprising: starting the automatic traveling when the user performs the operation of starting the automatic traveling with a touch panel (para. 0012, 0016-0018, 0025, 0030, driver command the vehicle to begin autonomous parking via mobile application).
As to claims 6 and 13, Wang further discloses comprising: starting the automatic traveling when a driver gets off the vehicle after stopping the vehicle at the start position within the traveling route, and the user performs the operation of starting the automatic traveling from an outside of the vehicle via an operation terminal (para. 0016).
As to claim 7, Wang further discloses comprising: estimating a position of the vehicle based on the traveling route and characteristic points that are extracted from a surrounding image (para. 0017, 0028, camera).
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Endo, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Minase et al. (US 2021/0107564 A1).
As to claim 15, Wang and Endo do not explicitly teach displaying a start button in an operable state, after displaying the message prompting the user to stop the vehicle, when the vehicle reaches a position where the vehicle is able to merge into the traveling route. However, Minase teaches displaying a start button in an operable state, when the vehicle reaches a position where the vehicle is able to merge into the traveling route (Fig. 3B, para. 0101). Therefore, given the teaching of Minase, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of present application to modify the device/method of Wang, by incorporating the well-known feature of displaying start button, to enable the user to start the automatic parking operation.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Endo and Minase, as applied to claim 15 above, further in view of Xie et al. (CN 109466545 A).
As to claims 16-17, Wang, Endo and Minase do not explicitly teach displaying the start button in an inoperable state, after displaying the message prompting the user to stop the vehicle, when the vehicle has not reached the position where the vehicle is able to merge into the traveling route. However, Xie teaches displaying the start button in an inoperable state, =e, when the vehicle has not reached the position where the vehicle is able to merge into the traveling route (Translation para. 0089). Therefore, given the teaching of Xie, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of present application to modify the device/method of Wang, by incorporating the well-known feature of displaying start button in gray out, to disable the start of automatic parking operation when the vehicle is not in the correct position to start automatic parking operation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ce Li Li whose telephone number is (571)270-5564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10AM-7PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter D Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CE LI . LI
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights